Posted
by
Hemos
on Monday March 05, 2007 @10:29AM
from the making-the-switch dept.

jkwdoc writes "Vexed by Vista's hardware requirements and product activation issues, many have claimed on various boards that they plan to 'switch to Linux.' [H] Consumer spent 30 days using nothing but Ubuntu Linux to find out if this is truly a viable alternative for the consumer. Linux has indeed become much more than the 'Programmer's OS.'"

From the article: But what about power users, such as the typical audience of HardOCP - those who know how to build their own computers, but not compile their own programs?

IMHO, anyone who wants all the control of building your own computer, reads a website which has overclocking in the name and thinks Linux/FreeBSD/Open Source is either misguided about the benifits of Linux or is just lazy. Putting your own computer together these days with all the options, choices to make, etc. is getting harder than it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, Linux has been getting easier. So I don't see where the challenge is for these people.

It is nice to see that non-Linux people are continuing to give Linux a try. Most things in the world only get one chance and then its over.

It seems to me that often people who build their own computers and worry about overclocking are doing so to get the most bang for their buck for gaming purposes. This would not be necessarily be a target audience for Linux.

Maybe you don't recall IRQ conflicts or undocumented jumpers. Perhaps you don't recall 'Plug and Pray'. To say nothing of cases wherein their manufacturers believed human hands were made of some steely, unbreakable substance and by no means needed protection from sharp metal.

I can slap a computer today very nearly by accident in comparison to the annoying foibles of yester-year-- saying it has become more difficult simply smacks of an unwillingness to become familiar with new technologies. That doesn't really play well in this community, sir.

It's more harder to put a CPU fan on top of the CPU with all the extra clips, screws and whatever else. Back in the Pentium days, switching a CPU was no problem and I did that frequently. These days I switch out the CPU once in a blue moon since removing and putting the fan back on can be a bitch.

IRQ conflicts were 15 years ago. 10 years ago was about the easiest it has ever been. Buy an ATX power supply and case, any of the hundreds of Intel BX boards, whatever the fastest Slot 1 you could afford was, a hard drive, a cd drive, (it was all the same bus then) and if you really had mad cash maybe a Geforce 1 or Voodoo3. All cards were PCI w. AGP video. Everything was PC100 memory, and it was pretty cheap for the time.

Now, you have 5 differant processor sockets, 8 differant chipsets, 3 differant memories all in multiple speeds, differant power supply sockets, PCIx, PCI, and AGP, etc... Plus, it is harder to tell which parts are the fastest or best value now that everyone says their chip all their chips are equivallent to 4 GHz. The chance of being able to upgrade to current equipment is much less than it used to be. Replacing a processor now almost always means memory, power supply, motherboard, and heat sink.

All of this is hard enough building a windows machine, but now couple on getting Linux compatibility, and I say no thanks. I have built dozens of machines for family and friends, but I no longer do. I tell them to go to Dell, buy the cheapest thing, upgrade the memory. I don't have support or warranty issues. Im not returning parts that are wrong, etc...

My best solution to this problem was that when my super tricked out brand new system got stolen, I bought a mac, and it was one of my best computing moves. I paid a rediculous amount, but 3 years later, I haven't felt the need to upgrade it once.

The challenge is in the purpose. AFAIK, people don't just got into the guts of their system to crank everything up for the joy of theoretical numbers to throw around. Generally, they're after the biggest, baddest box for a reason. A big reason for a lot of people is gaming, after all...it's what consumes the most horsepower. And gaming is currently where Linux falls short. I think if more games (that people want to play) were available with native Linux support, more people would be willing to switch.

Distro's like Ubuntu are great for non-technical users to have a solution to hop on the Internet, check email, do word processing, that sort of thing. In short, all the stuff that a non-technical user is likely to do with a computer anyway.

AFAIK, people don't just got into the guts of their system to crank everything up for the joy of theoretical numbers to throw around.

talk to a hardcore seti addict sometime. they will drop $1500 on a new liquid cooled rig to push them up to the next user class. the guys in the top 20 are even worse. i had a friend who once misappropriated a whole software test lab over a 4 day weekend to see a boost in seti rank.

For me what has changed the most is that the reliability of hardware is much harder to predict. 10 years ago there were good brands and as long as you stuck with them you would have a reliable machine. Now-a-days it isn't anywhere near as clear-cut. Every brand is trying to aim for the low prices and thus has it's occasional stinkers. And the hardware review sites are no help because they only test for performance not reliability. Pricing has also more time consuming as half the online retailers advertise a

You say that (not needing a floppy drive), and I thought the same when I built my new computer a couple of years ago... Turns out though that Windows XP required drivers for the SATA controller from a floppy during the install process, so I ended up having to pull a hard drive out of an old computer, just to install Windows. In fact, the disk with the Windows drivers on it is still in my drive (poking out), despite me having been using Ubuntu full time for about 6 months now.
So, whilst I agree that floppy

I have been building my own rigs for more than ten years, and I have KUBUNTU up on one of the boxes on my LAN. I have a stumbling block trying to understand the LINUX file system. It's like I download something like Firefox - and can't find where it went. I have been searching for a book that could walk me through everything, sort of like a translation of M$-speak to LINUX-speak.
Then, I would be more than happy to kiss Windoze g'Bye.

You know how Windows has "My Documents", right? And that's the default place for downloaded files to go?

The analogous concept in Linux is the "home directory". It's called that because each user account on the system has one, and that user has complete power to do whatever they want there, unlike most of the system which requires admin privileges to make changes.

The home directories, logically enough, are all stored in the/home branch of the filesystem. So if your user account name was "cpnabend", your home directory is probably/home/cpnabend

The home directory is where the system is going to store lots of stuff -- configuration files for applications, downloaded files, you can even install applications in there (if you're the only user who needs them). In this way the "home directory" concept is more expansive than the "My Documents" concept, which is only for document files (your configs are in the Registry, your apps are in Program Files). It's also why the home directory is more useful than My Documents -- if you regularly backup your home directory, you will have nearly everything you need to bring your Linux box back from the dead in case of emergency.

Windows has home directories. In fact, My Documents is a subdirectory of it.X:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents is the real location of My Documents (replace X: with the system drive and username with the user's login name).

The thing is, most people don't know about it because new users on Windows 2000/XP on non-Windows/Netware domain systems have administrative privileges by default.

Fun fact: User home directories (AKA User profiles) can be stored on a central server in a Windows domain. Onl

I've not seen any *nix distro use anything but/home for years, with the exception of the superuser wich always uses/root. The last time I did was about the time Microsoft changed from %windir%\profiles (the Windows NT 4 directory) to Documents and Settings.

Additionally, you can use the '~' shortcut. '~' is current user's home directory. It's equivalent to %userprofile% in Windows. '~fred' is user fred's home directory. Also, 'cd' with no directory always changes you back to your home directory (it's the same as 'cd ~').

Linux's unified directory structure is very confusing especially compared to the Windows system (everything is a file, logical to physical mapping is not obvious), but home directories are one of the easiest things possible. The most complicated thing for me was figuring out the difference between/bin,/usr/bin, and/usr/local/bin (and then/sbin and it's contemporaries). It boils down to needing to learn the FHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy _Standard), and then learning the history of the directories. For example,/opt and/srv are still rather new, so a lot of systems still use/var.

If you think about it though, Windows's directories are also rather complex. Windows doesn't install in C:\Windows. It's really in C:\Windows\System32. Program Files is supposed to be read only, and it's one of the reasons so many apps only work when you're an admin. Documents and Settings, while an accurate name, is filled with hidden directories where the OS is trying to keep the user from breaking it, but you still need to get into them from time to time. pagefile.sys is the system pagefile, hiberfil.sys is for hibernation. NTLDR is the bootstrap, and the bootloader is kept in the volume MBR and is completely hidden since all it does is find NTLDR and run it. Most systems have an \i386 directory copied from the CD since Windows wants it from time to time. There's also \RECYCLER which is the recycle bin, and \System Volume Information which contains information Windows itself uses as well as where it store the Restore Points. %userprofile%\NTUSER.DAT is the user's registry hive, while the other registry hives all live in C:\WINDOWS\system32\config. %windir%\system32\config\systemprofile and %documentsandsettings%\.Default user also exists on most systems, containing information on the default profiles. %windir%\system32\drivers is filled with kernel-mode code (real mode, mostly drivers) and %windir%\system32\dllcache contains protected-mode code (user-mode apps). Then there's 5 or 6 different temp directories, and storage locations for Group Policy, security objects, system logs, etc.

You shouldn't be installing things like Firefox manually. Any decent distribution (Ubuntu/Debian, Fedora, etc) have much better application management than Windows (or the Mac). They handle finding, installing, and updating mainstream apps for you.If you really want to know where an application is, and are using the shell (command line), use the "which" command.

$ which firefox/usr/bin/firefox

If you want the basics, as another poster said, everything that is yours is in your home directory, which means when

Mac doesn't manage dependencies at all. So everything is a monolithic glob, or you have to manually install some other required piece of software.

Mac doesn't manage system wide updates at all. For every app, you have to hope it has a "check for update" option, somewhere. With Linux package managers, it's across the system, for all applications. Mac will never do this, because Apple vs Mac developers is a dysfunctional relationship, Apple wants to make it awkward so they can unfairly compete when they feel like it.

Finally, Mac apps and updates are often lazy, and request the system is restarted. Linux packages rarely do this.

I don't know what your Linux package management experiences are, but I've rarely had any issues installing, updating and removing apps, although granted on systems like Debian they are not the most up to date, which rarely matters over the advantages of everything being managed.

Luckly though, implementing updating into your application is only a few clicks and an rss feed away with Sparkle [andymatuschak.org]. Sparkle makes it so a developer has no excuses to not to add updating into their application - literally, zero lines of code added. Though - it would be nice to be able to hook into Software Update - just for the uniformity as a user - however I do like the current method (Sparkle enhanced) very much as well.

Even if you just want a dirt cheap PC you can still usually build one for cheaper than what Dell does. The main thing you get with Dell is: support, and a single stop for your warranty. Most people who read Slashdot are without need of the very basic support Dell can offer (good for the clueless, but overall their support guys know less than most technophiles). The warranty is nice, but even building your own you usually have a warranty on all the components, you just have to do more work (contacting individual manufacturers) in order to use the warranty if needed.

Personally though, while the upfront cost is nice, I found it beneficial a LONG time ago to stick with homebuilt PC's, simply because they all use fairly standard equipment. My first x86-based computer was a Packard Bell 486, and it pained me as that thing got old that there was very, very little I could do with it to keep it updated (everything was proprietary). So my next PC was one of those "screw driver" shop ones from a local store where they built them with everything off the shelf. That was circa 1996 or so. Since then, I've never actually bought an entirely new PC. Don't get me wrong, my current computer is absolutely zero components in common with that system (and I've been through countless iterations of unique configurations), but all of that has been done through an upgrade here, an upgrade there, etc. With almost any major manufacturer's systems, you eventually just have to dump it and start again.

Who gives a fuck, it's new and it's cheap. Cheaper with XP or Linux instead of Vista, which I spent a good 3 hours setting up for someone yesterday (on a Dell) and was underimpressed. It sounds cliche, but there really are a lot of people who just want to use their computer to check email, surf the Internet and watch youtube videos. Call his suggested configuration outdated if you will, but it is adequate for a large group of users. I would also suggest that this configuration may actually boot up faster and run just as quickly as the average Dell because it won't come preinstalled without the megabytes of crap software that Dell likes to include with thier OEM and run at boot time. Ironically enough, looking through the invoice, they listed and charged $.01 per peice of crap software preinstalled. I can only guess it's for accounting/inventory purposes that they would do such a thing. I would hope that if they are going to charge for crap software that I don't want, even if it is a penny, I should have the opportunity to opt out when ordering.

That's the POINT of a "Dirt Cheap" PC setup. You want dirt cheap, you get second, third, or 4th generation old parts. Frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with using older generation parts, provided you don't expect them to perform like cutting edge stuff. Honestly, any machine with at least a 1Ghz Processor, 1 GIG RAM, and a 2 generation old video card should be able to run XP or Ubuntu with no trouble at all. Vista, No.

But then isn't that the POINT of this article anyway? To get off the expensive upgrade treadmill by moving to an OS that doesn't waste your CPU and RAM by being full of bloatware and unnecessary services and processes? (I won't even go into the benefits from a computing experience free of virus and spyware worries.)

If I buy even the cheapest Dell, I'll be getting either an AM2-socket AMD or a LGA775-socket Intel. I'll also be getting PCI Express. There likely won't be a video card in the PCIe slot, but it'll be there.

With your configuration, I get a Socket 754 AMD chip and AGP, neither of which have any future at all. No new parts are coming out for either or even have for quite a while now.

That's a 48 cent difference in favor of the Dell. Also remember with the Dell it's already installed, tested, and expected to work right out of the box. With the homebrew machine, you're talking at least 20 minutes assembly if you're really good and then about 1/2 hour installing Windows (the new Vista installer really is a lot faster). Figure for another 1/2 hour downloading/installing the nVidia graphics and chipset drivers after that before you're ready to use it. Unlike some, I'll give that time up though, because going and decrapifying a new Dell, particularly the cheap ones, takes about as long.

In the end, you come out 48 cents poorer, lacking a single source of support if something isn't working right, and with no OS support at all (OEM editions of Windows are to be supported by the system builder, i.e. YOU). I love building my own machines as much as the next person (I haven't owned an OEM desktop in 10 years), but given the choice I'll take the Dell.

Below is a quicker perusal of Newegg. Note that I could slightly downgrade some of these specs (such as going with a Sempron 3000 instead of 3400 to save money, an option which isn't available from Dell), and I could also shop around and likely come out cheaper than Newegg, but it's a good place to through lots of stuff together:

The advantages you mention were covered in my original post. I specifically said that you get the better warranty and support when buying from Dell, but that you could get off cheaper if all you wanted was a cheap computer. You challenge that statement, and when proved wrong, you try to retort with points that I originally made.

My original point still remains exactly the same despite your completely irrelevant comments: building your own system *can* be done cheaper than Dell (even on the low end - the price savings increases as you approach the high end), but if you want the extra warranty or support, you can buy from them.

You've never tried to get warranty service from Dell, it seems. The one time I did was also the one time I got into dueling tech support (with Microsoft!). It wasn't even a personal purchase: it was at work! I recommended against Dell at the time, but Policy overrode me.

Also, every OEM product I've bought has come with a warranty.

I hate to throw accusations around lightly, but you sound almost like a Dell FUD lackey.

We've quietly replaced his copy of Windows XP with Folger's Coffee Crystals. Let's see if he notices any difference.

For me and a guest speaker, we made the switch and he didn't notice.

One of our social groups (not business) had a guest speaker. He requested we provide a computer and projection system for a PowerPoint slide show. The newest laptop I have is a Windows 2K/Ubuntu machine running Office 2K & Open Office.

He came and spoke and complained that his slide show wasn't working properly. The text

It's my small contribution to the dialogue between the prematurely old and the young.

From the wikipedia entry: [wikipedia.org]Another famous advertising campaign from the early 1980s took the viewer inside various gourmet restaurants as a voice-over whispered, "We are here at (insert name of four-star restaurant), where we've secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folgers Crystals. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!" Of course, no one ever did.

I first seriously got into Linux when I found out about XP's activation system back in 2001 or so. Until then, I had used it for home server applications (like a web server for PHP testing, and a cheap NAT/firewall router) and a development environment for college programming courses, but the news of the crazy activation scheme drove me to actually using it as my primary OS, with the intention of phasing out Windows 2000 at some point.I still use Linux (Fedora Core 6) as my primary OS, and I'm pretty happy

I think it is worth noting that similar stuff was said about XP before it's release. Once XP was out it became pretty clear that the uptake was going to be very fast. Here we have slow uptake of Vista and comments made about switching after the release. It isn't entirely wishful thinking this time - though wishful thinking clearly come in to it to some extent.The other point is that Linux has come a long was since Windows XP was released while Windows has... well, just look at Vista. The difference between

I remember similar stuff said about XP. Look what happened there. People that might be interested in Linux or OS X will try Linux or OS X. People who aren't, won't. In the end, very little will change.

Not entirely true. Windows XP was actually eagerly anticipated by most of the windows using world. The possibility of a stable OS that would work with existing applications, games, and be compatible with the stuff we use at work, was exciting. It's easy to forget the dark years of Win9x (especially for me since I held out using DOS/Win3.1 until 1 year before XP came out) but they were terrible with BSODs every day. I remember how a computer could not be left on overnight and be expected to run well in the morning. I remember that even if you setup password protected logins you could bypass all of that by clicking 'cancel' at the login prompt. Windows XP was a HUGE improvement. It was massively adopted upon release.

Now Vista on the other hand has elicited nothing but hand wringing for several years. For what I can tell it has little good to offer except eye candy. On the downside the OS has DRM in it's DNA, it has a ridiculous security sceme. It fails to run lots of current software. It claims but fails to be more secure (can't use 3rd party anti-virus). It has extreme hardware requirements. I built my last new PC within months of the release of XP. I will not build a PC for Vista. I will not buy a PC with Vista. I do not look forward to the day that I must start using Vista at work.

The big question is this: Linux or Apple? I have an older PC in the house running Ubuntu. It's great, and it also sucks. It has tons of free software. It can't legally play DVDs. It is supremely stable and runs really fast on very antiquated hardware. Getting it to do something out of the ordinary (like using the midi keyboard I got for my son) requires navigating a byzantine maze of forums, scripts, command lines. It fit nicely with my philosophy. You can build your own. On the other hand, Apples "just work." They cost more. You don't get to build your own. Since I don't have as much time as I used to I'll probably buy an Apple for 90% of my use, and I might have a 2nd PC with linux for doing stuff that requires high end software that I don't care to buy.

That being said, am I a typical user? Hardly. I've been on the internet since 1988. I built my last computer myself. I know enough to know how little I know. Lots of people think I'm some sort of computer guru. I realize that I am just barely competent. I would never recommend linux to my Dad or a computer-clueless friend. I tell them, "Go buy a Mac. They just work." When they get their Apple, they are happy. I'd rather USE a computer than ADMINISTER one.

The place where Linux really needs to start to shine is the workplace. People run PCs at home, mostly because they run PCs at work. There's exceptions, but this is definitely the majority.

What's really needed is some 'professional' IT organisation to sell a definitive Linux solution for a whole workplace. And support it. And point out that actually it a) costs less to support and b) is way cheaper.

Personally, I think it's viable, and I can see IBM gradually moving that way, and perhaps Sun too. But they'll have a lot of work to do to overcome the 'No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft' attitude that's ingrained into most of the workplaces in the world. (I'm still somewhat stunned at the complete lack of understanding of the mere existance of Unix that I see in my current, IT company).

*shrug* I look forward to a day when every business desktop runs Linux. I think there's a lot of people who's talents are wasted being support monkeys for cranky windows bogosity. But at the same time, I can't see it happening, simply because it'll put a lot of people out of work.

I'm old enough to remember a time when you would get laughed at if you suggested Windows would be used in the office, this was around the Windows 3.0 days. Novell ruled the smaller server space, and Word Perfect and DOS were king.Windows started to penetrate the desktop first with Windows 3.1 (IIRC) and Office. Then Novell made some serious mistakes, like making it hard for Windows desktops to connect to Novell servers (actually Microsoft did this, but Novell could of done much better), and not supporting

I switched my 80 year-old grandmother to Ubuntu 6 months ago. I won't pretend there were no problems, but they all revolved around user interface. Specifically, things didn't EXACTLY match Outlook/Internet Explorer's interface. Once I explained that and she used it for about 2 weeks, she has no problems whatsoever.

She DOESN'T do any DVD editing. She DOES use digital photography (in that I send her pictures of her great grandson and she views them). She's even managed to solve minor problems on her own. She writes documents, receives documents (both word and excel), and has had no issues to date that could not be solved in 10 minutes on the phone.

Her only major complaint? It's not the user interface. It's not the multifunction printer/copier/scanner. It's not the funky colors. It's not the email. It's that she can't make the computer wit more than 2 hours before hibernating.

Perhaps these "reviews" of "typical users" should evealuate what a real "typical user" actually is.

I'm not suggesting it is ready for prime time. I was merely trying to provide a description for the OP of how helping someone overcome initial difficulties/fears can pave the way. He was interested in helping his parents switch, and I was merely suggesting to him good ways to do that. I think the fact that you read everything as a "Linux is ready now!", whether it is or not, says more about you.

I 'switched' to Linux several times in the past, only to get frustrated and switch back. But Kubuntu has stuck. I'm Windows free for a year now. The reason it stuck this time is simple - with Firefox, Flash 9, Acrobat Reader, and w32codecs, the WWW is now as good on Linux as it is on Windows. I'm surprised more people don't make a bigger deal about this. For me it's huge.

I have been meaning to try out Linux for years, but never ventured. Thanks to reading/. (can't remember how long; should be 3+ years) I finally decided to take the plunge two weeks ago.

I chose openSUSE, simply because it got some Press(Read: Novell).

I have XP on Toshiba Laptop and wanted to have a dual boot on it.

I used GParted [sourceforge.net] for partition, though openSUSE came with partition manager. GParted was very easy and "Windows like"

The installation went smooth and openSUSE recognized all hardware. I chose GNome as the desktop, simply because Firefox came with it.

I played around and customized to my liking. Opened the Terminal and played with the vi editor. It seems like vi skills are etched in memory(I used to program in C years ago).

I hit the road block with wireless network. The installer recognized Intel 3945 wireless card, but would not connect.

Doing a Google search(are you happy now Google lawyers?), I found I am not alone. I tried ALL solutions offered on various forums.

1. Using Intel's Linux driver - This required a kernel version of 2.6.8 or greater. openSUSE 10.2's kernel is 2.6.16 or something. It is only sensible to use the native driver right? I hit the wall again and again.

2. ndiswrapper - Grudgingly I tried this as a last resort. Same result.

Time spent: Few weekday evenings and a weekend (to the dismay of spouse)

I absolutely love the shiny OS. Unfortunately I can not use it without an wireless internet connection.

So it sits there unused.(I changed the default OS to Windows in GRUB).

You can't expect Linux to run on some random piece of hardware; no other operating system does that either. In fact, genuine Microsoft Windows frequently doesn't even install on supposedly supported hardware--you need the vendor's preinstalled image. In comparison, Linux works like a charm.

If you want no-hassles installations, buy a laptop that's know to work with Linux. Even better, buy a Laptop with Linux preinstalled, and it will work out of the box.

I just installed Kubuntu Feisty Fawn Herd 5 on my new ASUS laptop with Intel 3945 wireless. It recognized it immediately on the default install and let me connect to my home router. Didn't have to do anything else!

Ubuntu is derived from Debian. I had qualms about making my main desktop Linux for various reasons, but in 2005 an attempt to have my Windows do wireless screwed up the whole system, and then I needed to use that OEM Windows CD crap, which not only mucked with my C drive but erased my whole D drive for some reason. I got tired of it and switched to Debian.

I thought I would miss some things in Windows but I didn't. The thing I thought I would miss most was Microsoft Word, but Abiword did fine. I was always concerned I would have to modify my resume and send it out in a nice Word format that Linux wouldn't have, but that was never a problem. I never missed Windows for anything. They talk about Windows having better hardware support, but my (then) 802.11b wireless was a hell of a lot easier to install on my system then Linux. I also liked the ability to open a shell and just be able to do stuff - do an awk or sort or whatever on a file, have multiple windows and so forth. It had all the nice user brain-dead stuff of Windows, but I could drop to a shell and actually do stuff, instead of getting some MS-DOS prompt crap. It's much better nowadays than my old days when I had a Linux kernel version 1 running fvwm as one of my work desktops (the other desktop at that time was a Sun IPX running SunOS 4.1.3_U1).

I'm a long time windows user, from the DOS days and I've always remained on the windows side of things mainly because at work its all we use. I never saw any point of switching of linux at home knowing that knowledge would not serve me at work.

I'd usually spend efforts trying to improve on things that would help me at work.

Anyway, now im starting a web hosting and web design (very) small company. I'm not really impressed by the direction MS is taking nor by the fees its charging. Vista smells like a truckload of overhead shit that i have zero interest in even trying out. The 2003 line of servers from MS is just too expensive just to avoid mentionning i hate the notion of online activation/tracking.

I've installed Ubuntu and other distros of linux at the time and while I've always got stuck with the file structure and various command lines to learn, i feel this is something i could get the hang of over time.

But what brings me back everytime to windows are my own limitations regarding programming. At work, we do ASP and ASP.net. Not c#, vb.net. I can read c# but i don't really program with it.

I have no interest in learning php, ruby or other languages despite all their advantages. Because at work that's not what we use and I'd rather re-use my skills rather than split into a new branch just because im having something on the side.

so, my question is, is there any (easy) way i could be running the.net framework on ubuntu ? no virtual machine if possible, no emulation, just run.net framework on ubuntu ?

I know its pretty contracdictory but i dont want to install overhead on my server just for the benefit of running.net, I don't think its possible otherwise but that's why im asking to people who knows more about this.

It depends on what you mean by ".NET framework". If you mean the *Actual* framework, as in the thing that takes your c# code and runs it, then yes, you can easily use Mono (which is a competing implementation) in ubuntu.

If, however, you mean Visual Studio, then there may be issues. There are several nice IDEs in linux (Eclipse, KDevelop, etc), but none are exactly the same as Visual Studio, and I don't know how well any of them deal with.NET.

Check out the Mono Project [mono-project.com]. Mono is a.NET implementation on Linux. You will need to make some source code changes to get it to work in Mono, but a lot of the code should work out of the box.
I used Mono to port an in-house application we use here at the office into Mono. Our aplication is in C#, but I believe mono will also do ASP.NET. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? I only had to do some minor code changes to get a majority of our.NET application to work under Gentoo and Ubuntu. Some features had

Because at work that's not what we use and I'd rather re-use my skills rather than split into a new branch just because im having something on the side.

No offense, but I've never understood this statement. A spreadsheet's a spreadsheet, whether it be 1-2-3, Excel, or whatever. How long do you expect it to take to be able to pick up the basics of it? After that, learn what you need to get things done. I went from MS Works to a shareware clone of 1-2-3 for DOS. Guess what? Most of it is the same, any serious stuff takes some different commands, but they all do pretty much the same thing.

My comment has nothing to do with your solution, but...As a fellow programmer, I have to put in a plug for using your time at home to learn other languages you don't use at work. Picking a new language and then forcing yourself to do a project in it will seriously make you a better programmer in your primary language, and will make your life much easier at work. When you dive into a language that is substantially different than your original you learn completely new ways to approach problems, many of whic

Well the list is typical I am afraid.1. No 64 bit Flash. Or the lack of support in the X64 version of Firefox for 32 bit plug ins.2. You can not watch DVDs you buy at the store with out breaking the law... Thank you US government...3. Drivers specifically the fact that it is IMPOSIBLE for a manufacture to put a binary linux driver on a disk and stick in the box with his product.

The first part the Linux community really can not do a lot about. I guess that the distros could ship the 32 bit version of Firefox as the default until Adobe catches up.

The second issue is a legal fiction and can only be fixed by lawyers... And that is never a good state of affairs.

The third is my least favorite problem because it could at least be helped by the kernel developers. If they would just put in a stable binary driver interface then it would be possible to put drivers an a CD. Currently they don't want to put one in because they feel it would encourage closed source drivers. They will use excuses about performance but the simple truth is it is all about politics.This article was a great example. The new network adapter didn't have a driver in distro. In this case the driver hadn't made it to the kernel yet. Even if the manufacture had produced a FOSS driver there would be no way to put it on the CD. There would be no way of knowing if it would work with the users kernel. They would have put a bunch of source code on the disk and maybe a script to compile it... If the user has a development system installed and the right headerfiles...I hate technical problems caused by politics.

I was impressed by the author's attention to detail and clear specification of the tested systems and the steps involved in using them.

One useful correction would be that programs are just as easy to install on.rpm-based systems as they are on.deb-based systems. The default tool on Fedora Core 6 is called YUM [fedorafaq.org] and it does all the dependency resolving necessary. There are even simpler front ends to it such as Pup [oreillynet.com] and Pirut. Package installation, deinstallation, upgrade and update are just as easy as they are with Aptitude.

The problems that the author experiences with 64-bit Flash are unfortunately a result of there being insufficient pressure from GNU/Linux consumers on vendors to supply Free software. A similar problem is experience by many Ubuntu users that rely on the non-Free drivers produced by Nvidia for their graphics cards, or the various non-free binary blobs used for some dodgy wireless hardware. This will continue to be a problem as long as distributions like Ubuntu facilitate the manufacturers of this hardware in evading one of the central principles of Free Software. The manufacturers can't do a good enough job of staying current with the kernel and so GNU/Linux will always be a second class citizen as long as we accept this. Fortunately there are manufacturers, such as Intel [intellinuxgraphics.org] that provide Free software for their 3D graphics cards and their wireless chipsets and so it's worth choosing their components when building a new system. (I used to buy ATI stuff because the Free 3d drivers were better than the Free Nvidia ones, but apparently the nouveau [freedesktop.org] project is opening up the list of working Free Nvidia cards. I'll probably be giving Nvidia and ATI both a miss in favour of Intel though).

Unfortunately Mark Shuttleworth is a short-term thinker who is pushing [desktoplinux.com] many of the Ubuntu developers into including binary, closed blobs that work until you update your system. This is the tired old "I'm a pragmatist" line which has been releiving the pressure on manufacturers to open their drivers and on users to choose non-closed hardware while purchasing new systems. It's anything but pragmatic and leads to the sort of frustrations seen in the article.

I recently decided came to the exact same conclusion as the article supposes some people will--Vista was not getting on my computer and I didn't want to continue patching XP for the next 5 years. I have almost no Unix experience and the command prompt is something that I have never been comfortable with. But I had a lot of faith in The Community since I'm a regular/. reader and I figured that I could learn.

I use my computer for a couple of things:

Most importantly, media server, synchronizer of iPods and center to my home entertainment center.

Email, browsing, messaging.

Office documents.

Warcraft III.

Setting up Linux was difficult, I won't lie. I went with Fedora 6 after not really finding any distro review sites that I could understand what they were talking about. I don't "blame" the setup difficulty on anything--I expected it to be difficult for me. Configuring a dual-boot system took me 4-6 hours to figure out, setting up the right partitions (making sure nothing on my windows partitions got erased) took me wayy too long (screwed it up twice). Figuring out how to move from firefox 1.5 to firefox 2.0 was surprisingly difficult. I don't really understand why that particular thing isn't part of the yum update process but that's just an outsider's perspective. The other thing that was surprisingly hard was the browser plugins--I have an x64 chip and none of the plugins have x64 versions that I could find. So I had to install some firefox extension that creates cross-compatibility.

I haven't figured out Samba yet--this seems like it should be easy but so far it's not. Honestly, I'm inclined to believe that this is the fault of Windows Networking. Regardless, it's hard. As for Warcraft III, one day I'll set it up to run under Wine, but for now I'm happy dual-booting. It encourages me to play much less, which is definitely a very good thing.

Everything else has been pretty reasonable. It hasn't been easy, but it was more or less what I would expect moving from one platform that I've been using for 8 years to a totally new one. After 2 months, I'm now up and running and can use my computer for basically everything I want. I love the feeling of security I have in the system. File security is so easy and I love the fact that everyone doesn't log in as administrator. And I'm no longer terrified of viruses.

I'm very glad I invested the time and would encourage others in my position to do the same. Just keep at it--the answer is always there on a message board somewhere:)

I'm also trying Ubuntu Linux on my desktop. I'm liking it a lot, although I didn't remove Windows yet. This is my 3rd install (1st one got wiped when my previous HD crashed, 2nd one I managed to destroy by running Nautilus sudoed and making all the files owned by root.root), and after some tweaking with Automatix and Automatix Bleeder, and uninstalling the older OpenOffice available in Edgy and installing the newer 2.1.0 one, everything so far is working well.

What I really miss in Ubuntu is a good and simple file manager. Nautilus is okay, but doesn't work in the intuitive way Windows Explorer works. Some annoying usability problems I have with it:

a) The tree view on the left panel doesn't answer to keyboard commands that work on folders and files in the right panel, such as pressing Del to delete a folder. Windows Explorer is consistent in this regards.

b) It doesn't get updated properly if I use a bookmarked folder to jump to a folder, I must press the Reload button for the tree structure to appear correctly. The same feature in Windows Explorer works as intended, with the tree instantaneously opening to where I jumped.

c) When I delete a folder I'm inside by right-clicking it in the tree folder and choosing Remove, it moves both the folder and the fact I'm inside it to the trash, thus making me lose the position I were in the tree. Windows Explorer deletes the folder and put me in the folder directly below the one that was deleted.

d) I can't move a file or folder with the mouse right-button. Windows Explorer allows this by showing me a context-sensitive menu when I release the button, offering options such as move, delete, create link, and other features integrated into the shell.

e) Lastly, even though Nautilus recognize some oddly named text files as such, double clicking them is an exercise in guessing: sometimes it will offer me a window asking me whether I want to run it (when it doesn't have the executable attribute set) or open it, other times it'll simply open it in GEdit, and others still it won't allow me to open them in GEdit, forcing me to right-click and choose the "Open with Text Editor" option. Windows Explorer, on the other hand, allows me easily select a default action for files with this or that extension, and it simply works.

If someone knows of a Linux file manager that works in intuitive ways, if possible a Windows Explorer clone with Gnome integration, please tell me. I'll start using it right away.

PS.: Interestingly enough, I play World of Warcraft, and while it started breaking in my Windows XP installation, showing latencies of up to 15000ms and disconnecting, in Ubuntu with Wine it works almost flawlessly. One more reason to keep Ubuntu running.:)

As someone who uses other sustems more than Windows, but with quite a bit of Windows experience as well, I have to agree that you've hit one of the places where Windows actually shines.The tree view on the left panel doesn't answer to keyboard commands that work on folders and files in the right panel, such as pressing Del to delete a folder. Windows Explorer is consistent in this regards.

Consistent keyboardability was one of the things that impressed me in Windows right from the start... and the first vers

I ask that instead of automatically going "OMG he went with Microsoft he must be stupid / evil / a troll / whatever" - you think seriously and constructively about the pros and cons of each platform and why the MS route was more suitable for me. And perhaps, how Linux can cater to my type in future.

I've been interested in Linux for a long time, but as yet I haven't found it suitable to be a *complete replacement* for Windows; and unfortunately because it's so inconvenient switching back and forth, I might as well use the platform which works for me. I find myself facing Compromises quite a lot with Linux, and this is fine for a secondary machine but not a primary one. The compromises are fully understandable - most of the software is written by unpaid volunteers in their small amounts of free time, there are patent/DMCA issues holding back certain areas and many hardware and software manufacturers simply refuse to develop for Linux. However the fact remains that there are still compromises to be made - and ones which I'm not willing to make when I can pay £67 and do everything and never have any compatibility problems, compromises or headaches.

I have a long log of my experience with Ubuntu somewhere, but basically it boils down to this:

- Installation itself was ridiculously easy - on par with Vista. It was after installation that things went downhill...

- It didn't recognise my 1Gb network port (Asus P5B) so I had to use the 100Mb one until I *recompiled the kernel with patches* (messy, and getting the bits together for compiling it was a bitch)

- I never got wireless networking going, it would see the access points and connect to them but not get any data through and signal quality read '0'. I knew what I was doing and it was clearly a bug. Even ndiswrapper with the win98 drivers didn't work. There were endless other people encountering exactly the same problem in the Ubuntu Forums (network section) but nobody coming up with working answers. I am not willing to accept "well you have a wire connection, use that" as an answer.

- I got bluetooth kind-of working, although it was flaky to say the least (to be fair, the same usually applies in Windows. I only know of Macs and other non-PCs that have decent, reliable bluetooth support)

- Getting something other than 60Hz on my monitor, required hacking xorg.conf manually... I can do this so it's not a problem, but really I shouldn't have had to. A flaw with Ubuntu rather than Linux itself (and a long standing flaw as I had the same problem with early versions) as other distros handle monitor detection and configuration perfectly.

- Getting things like java, flash, etc were a ballache, as ever, due to all the licensing/patent issues.

- World of Warcraft didn't work in WINE or Crossover when I tried it. I didn't get around to messing with it much, to be fair, but I expected the latter to work as it's advertised as one of their primary supported products.

- I'm a keen photographer, and photography in Linux is "pants", to say the least. The only decent, configurable RAW converter (not dcraw, which only does the basics) was the commercial Bibble, and even then - due to it not using Canon's SDK - it's not a patch on Breezebrowser Pro or Canon's own DPP in Windows when the results are put side by side. Photography was essentially the deal-killer with me: there are many things I'm willing to compromise on or 'live with' - but I am not willing to compromise on my photos, otherwise I wouldn't have bought a 30D.

- What with all the other bits of software and games for Windows which are not ported to Linux or supported in WINE, and the sheer amounts of time you *still* have to invest in getting anything out-of-the-ordinary working (not nice after a hard day at work when all you want to do is spend the few available hours having fun) I'm afraid I went with the horned devil. £67 (Home Premium OEM) seems like a very reasonable amount to pay after all the wrestling with Ubuntu:)

Yeah, I never understood the appeal of Ubuntu and am diehard Fedora. The sudo business was very odd to me. You can run a command as root by using "sudo", but you enter your *own password? What gives?

Sudo gives you root access for the purpose immediately at hand, and then takes you back to your account. It lets you get in, get out, and not have your fanny hanging out there on the net in admin mode for someone to burn you.

It also means that if you're an admin and there are many users, you can avoid giving out the root password. You can set it so only specific people can use sudo, and you can monitor everything they do while in sudo mode. So, if something goes wrong, you know which person did it rather than a general "someone with the root password did it" and every guy's pointing to the guy next to him going "he did it!"

A fair point but my cat can push my PC off the desk, cover it in firewood, pour on petrol and set it alight destroying not just my PC but my house and possibly my neighbours houses into the bargain. I've even caught it dragging a couple of kilos of semtex to my off site backup locations with a joyful gleam in it's eye but luckily I was able to distract it with tuna.

For this reason I've now banned my cat from playing with matches. I had a maths teacher once who claimed his cat could do quadratic equations better than anyone in his class which did make me wonder that if he was able to teach his cat so successfully to do maths why he couldn't teach his class to do it so well, I suggested he may have had a more fulfilling career in a circus at which he looked surprised and said he thought that's what he had done.

Since there is no way anyone else can diagnose your problem, you are free to make any claims you want to about it.

Meanwhile, your experience seems to run counter to the majority. I have installed Ubuntu on many machines without a single problem. Ubuntu does have problems installing at times, but mostly with SATA drives on specific chipsets in specific configurations.

5) If you act like a spoiled jerk on a community-driven forum, stamp your little feet, and absolutely refuse to try any of their troubleshooting ideas or provide them with the information they repeatedly ask for, then they probably won't help you.

Yeah, I read the thread [ubuntuforums.org] where you "tried" to get help. Your take on the episode doesn't have a lot to do with what you actually posted at the time.

Moderators, before you mark me down, actually read the Slashdot thread he linked to. I'm not the one who initially pointed out his tantrums and complete refusal to help fix his own problem. I can't believe that he uses that thread as supporting evidence of why Ubuntu is broken.

Yeah, I read the thread where you "tried" to get help. Your take on the episode doesn't have a lot to do with what you actually posted at the time.

I actually didn't think he was being *that* much of a dick. I mean, you can tell he was frustrated. He takes a bunch of shots at the people trying to help him, but still, he just seems frustrated. I can relate. When I first started trying to use linux years ago, I encountered the same types of problems installing RedHat and suse.
The point of his bitching is that it didn't "Just Work" which is probably what has been forced down his throat by the people telling him to use Linux. Can't blame him for be

I don't recall them saying it had to be the computer with the problem. Sure, this didn't make it easy for you, but I'm willing to bet that with just a little effort you could have found another computer with a burner and a high speed connection. I'm am 100% certain that it was "physically possible". And if you had done this, your problem would have been fairly simple for the forum members to solve for you. Instead you yelled at and insult

As someone who has never seen this particular exchange before, yes, you come off like a jerk.You may not have meant it that way, but that's certainly the way it appears to someone reading it. In every response, you made a snide remark about Ubuntu or the other posters, rather than being polite with the people from whom you're seeking help. Implicit in all your responses is that it's all Ubuntu's fault, that there could not have been any user error.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide in helping undo the damage Ubuntu has done.

I guess there wasn't quite enough needless slagging off yet.

I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work.

And I guess he thought you were actually interested in recovering your PC instead of trolling the forums.

So in other words, you didn't read my first post, in which I said that the disc is fine and I've tried reinstalling multiple times. This just makes my day.

If this is how you act towards people you've never met who are trying to help you, I'd hate to work with you.

Don't see what difference that makes, given as I can't even get into Windows, and the problem is obviously due to GRUB. Seems like a fishing expedition there.

How about just giving him the fucking information he asked for? Too much to ask for some people, I guess...

Just yesterday I thought I knew what chutzpah was."Starting on the right foot" would include "not getting locked out of my computer because I installed a OS billed as 'Linux for Human Beings' ". "Starting on the right foot" would include finding instructions that answer the frequently asked question of "how do I set up a new partition and install to that partition?". "Starting on the right foot" would include an Ubuntu forum that doesn't take me a week of trying to access from different computers and connections before it consistently loads.Stop making excuses. So I wouldn't answer what Windows version it is. Can anyone think of any reason why one version of Windows over another would cause GRUB error 25? No? Okay then.The problem is not the devices, or the Windows version, or getting the latest install CD, or scratches on the install CD. The problem is the boot loader. The problem has already been diagnosed. You just want to chase all these wild geese because you don't want to admit that maybe this "access for all" OS has a serious problem.Would somebody just tell me how to edit, modify, fix, whatever, the boot loader? That's all. It should be really simple, given the rigorous testing that they would put a software capable of locking you out of your computer through.

Sheesh. You actually expected that to make people want to help you more than they were already?

You were asked what your hardware setup was -- including motherboard. I did not see any answer to this question.

I don't know if this was related to the problem, but I would certainly suspect it could be. You have a 1250MHz Athlon -- that's about a 1400+ or 1500+, correct? The sort of motherboard that would accept such a processor might not have BIOS support for >137GB disks

And you had your installation on a 200GB disk, correct?

So, I don't know if I have hit on the solution. You have not revealed it (why not unless you are just a troll?), but YOU FAILED TO ANSWER A CRITICAL question.

You were also rude, which is hardly a way to get help. In fact, I don't think you really wanted a solution -- you just wanted an excuse to complain about Ubuntu. That's why you have not revealed what the eventual solution was.

No, if you actually read the thread (*crossing fingers*), I did follow many of their suggestions, specifcally, the ones tailored to the troubleshooting I had already done. None followed up after that.

I read the thread. I read the thread when you first posted this shit, when I was completely willing to go along with your premise that the community (at least one web forum subsection of the community) had treated you badly and refused to help someone in need, since I'd seen it happen before. However your fir

"Frankly, I'm perplexed that anyone would pass on the opportunity to try out a free (as in beer) OS. "

Changing OS is too complicated for most people, and there's not enough payback. If it works, why break it? If you can send email, and look at the web, and write a letter, and it took a lot of pain to get that far, why change the system you use and have to learn all over again, maybe losing your old files? That's how most people see it.

Changing OS may cost nothing financially, but for many people, their time isn't free. The time required to install the new software, get up to speed using the new tools and assuring yourself that you can access your old files and all your other hardware (printer, digital camera, internet connection, etc) is either lost business time (=costs money) or lost personal time (=time away from more pleasant use of leisure time). It's only "free" if you were going to spend that time messing around with a computer anyway. For many people that's not the case.

Yeah, the usual ones: all the stuff from Id Software (Quake 1-4, Doom 1-3, Wolfenstein), UT2k3, Neverwinter Nights (the original, and its expansions), Darwinia and Uplink, and the run-off-the-mill patience, majhongg, tetris, sokoban &c., besides the ones ported by Loki (Soldier of Fortune, Kohan I [GREAT RTS], Rune &c.) and by Icculus (America's Army up to version 2.5.0 among others).

Let me preface this by stating some facts that will provide perspective to my argument.I am quite used to Linux. I used to help my local University setup Linux in their computing labs. I was also one of those nuts who found it fun to use LFS. I started on Slackware and have since become accustomed to every distribution from Debian to Gentoo. I still run OpenBSD (yes, I know it's not Linux) as my network firewall, and have developed production firewalls using IPTables for government contractors. Nothing is "

actually you can get quite a few newer games to work. Unreal has had Linux distros for a while. Wow can be made to work under WINE. The problem with most of these games is the setup time required to get it to run. Why spend an hour or two attempting to get WoW set up under linux when you can spend 5 minutes installing it under windows?

It's a catch 22. More people would use Linux if the games were there. But the games aren't there because not enough people use linux.

For the record (before I get poo pood) I've had ubuntu and mandrake on 2 seperate comps. My laptop (3-4 years old) runs everything just fine. My desktop (2 years old) did not have driver support for what I have in it, and most likely will not receive driver support (Soundblaster X-fi sound card). Not to mention the config editing I had to do to get the Nvidia 6800 to work.

As a hobby Linux is fine. You won't get the gaming freaks to switch over any time soon.

Why spend an hour or two attempting to get WoW set up under linux when

Yeah, I mean, who ever spends a whole hour or two on WoW? It's not like an hour or two setting it up would merely be a drop in the bucket compared to the RL-ignoring relationship-destroying thousands of hours you'll spend in WoW...

Linux used to be a hobby for me. For a few years linux was on the fence and one could fall off quite easily. Today though Linux has really matured. The biggest problem still exists--the linux zealot. They kill Linux, they harm the community, and the completely stifle growth on the desktop. The Linux community should shun them hard. They are like an outdated car. They are more broken than they are worth. It's best to move past them instead of trying to fix them. You can't appease a Linux zealot--they are harmful just by their very existence. I think the BSD community needs them now, and they should relent to the desktop.

You know in reality this fanaticism toward total open source is just ridiculous. On the one hand you see everyone saying Linux is only good if you are true open source while the majority say that they want quality commerical games and apps running under it. You can't have both. No one is going to release a commercial application or game as open source. So just consider the OS open source and get the applications/games running so the market share can grow.

I see the zealots holding everyone in a catch 22 with their false logic. We need development and yes that means comemrcial apps. Linux is just an OS. The applications and games are just applications and games. What benefits the users is more important then even open source. Never relinquish the open source product to the commercial venue but realize that the OS is just that, the OS. It is meant to be installed and forgotten. The users don't interact with the OS they interact with the applications and games. If you can get that through those zealot's thick skulls we'll have growth in the market. But that also means a real stand-alone universal distro applications installer.

It's about the USER not about the OS. Never has. These zealots have the same disease that Microsoft has -- OSitis. We, the users are the king. It is us that make or break you. It isn't about the OS. Your OS should provide the services to the apps and games so that we the users can benefit the greatest in the smallest amount of time.

All in all, I use Linux as my main box. My favorite game (Enemy-Territory) plays just fine on it. If I want to get any of my other games installed I can. Not that I can get them all but through Cedega or Wine I can. Keep in mind that there are quality commercial games out there such as Doom 3, Neverwinter Nights, Quake 3, UT2003/2004.

The problem here is DX9 and 10. It is a closed environment which requires a sizeable investment to learn and develop for. With Vista discontinuing support for OpenGL (even though OpenGL is still a widely competent and quality product) it makes it hard for developers to choose to target OpenGL even as a secondary target audience. These are efforts of a Monopoly power using tactics to close down its competition, clearly.

blockquote>
And here you have stated the problem perfectly.... Linux is for the guy who has no problem spending a few HOURS to get something working. People who want the machine to just do it with a minimal amount of effort use something else.

Not true. Ubuntu installs very smoothly, and if you don't mind paying for Cedega, Cedega and the games it supports also install very quickly, easily and smoothly. Installing firefox was a lot harder. Or installing WinXP. Or those very same games on Windows, even. Seriously, for gaming, Ubuntu+Cedega is as easy as you could hope for, annd it gives you a lot more control than you'd have in Windows.

Did you read the article? The experiences he had with Cedega were less than stellar, problems, low framerates etc. Not ideal

And $5 a month? I thought one of the points of Linux was that it was free... surely by paying $5 a month you're just paying the same amount as windows over a longer period of time, and all for less performance, installs that take 10 times as long as their Windows counterparts (read the article), and worse graphics and performance.

I'd agree with your sentiments. At home, Linux is a hobby that I indulge in on a secondary machine that is primarily use as a HTPC. At work, however, I would love to be running Linux. I had the pleasure of developing exclusively on a LAMP workstation a couple years ago and I was easily twice as efficient in Linux as I was in Windows. What really made the process a breeze for me was the ease of remote operation for pushing test code to the development server.

Why spend an hour or two attempting to get WoW set up under linux when you can spend 5 minutes installing it under windows?

Whoah. You obviously haven't installed WoW under Windows. It's 5 CDs for WoW, 4 more if you have Burning Crusade.Then there are the patches. When I installed on my notebook, there were at least 3 of those. The first was in the neighbourhood of 500MB.In reality, you're looking at a couple of hours.

My point is that the actual copying of the files from CD is the big hassle with install

It also runs stuff such as Flightgear (http://flightgear.org) which kicks Microsoft Flight Sim in the ASS. Not because of nicer graphics, but because you can do such cool stuff with it because it's open. Like use a webcam to get headtracking (instead of buying a $200 IR device) and just about every other cool thing you can think about.

I think we need more linux game developers, and for them to develop games that truly surpass anything available under Windows.. as soon as we have really cool stuff that's

Sure. Oh, you meant ones that do not suck greasy cocks... no, sorry; it only does ugly amateur console-games like Natheck and Hangman.

Install Cedega. It's not Open Source, but it does come in a nice and friendly.deb package, and it runs a reasonable number of my favourite games perfectly. In a way, the installation, starting the game and running it in a window instead of a stupid fullscreen mode, works even easier and smoother than on Windows.

It may simply be spoken by someone who values big explosions and flashy effects over playability. (Face it... Nethack IS ugly. It also happens to be a good game, but that doesnt' change the fact that it's ugly.)